About your Search

20130318
20130326
STATION
MSNBCW 10
CSPAN2 9
CSPAN 7
CNNW 4
KQED (PBS) 2
LANGUAGE
English 33
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)
, we said the problem is they are anti-american and we marched off into the two foreign policy debacles of the 20th-century. there is a problem there. rob nerve wracking mara 30 years later spoke of his regret we have not been able to listen that it was a failure of imagination to realize the french were the best informed westerners on in vietnam. we did not take them seriously because we assumed they had in for us. but i went to the records records, the french archives what his advisers were telling him in the french foreign ministry. they're renouncing those americans don't have culture but they said they analyzed the intelligence they rick getting, a 17,000 french citizens, the vietnamese exiles they had good information they tried to share it with us and we could not help because of the confusing concept of anti-americanism. >>host: other times where there are anti-nation with the roman empire? it should be us to the term that we have british officials talk about the notion of anglophobia to explain why they encounter resistance and to rise against the presence but the problem is th
? >> you have a great number of things. stories about the economy and about the foreign policy cash, etc.. what prompted me to write spin masters though was the benghazi attack. it became clear that the political news media rather than focusing on a story of foreign policy failures and the president had promised fy failing to produce eight said it significantly destroyed al qaeda and here we see the terrorists acting out. romney didn't feel that situation that well with his press conference he called it at the wrong time about the guy that runs the entire foreign policy apparatus in the united states. it really does seem he used to say that a reporter is someone else that will sell his soul for a good story but it took turns out when the story might make barack obama look bad or make his presidency looks like a failure they are going to miss stories by definition simply for the inability to see the failure to be interested .... on the editorial page recovered the way that i wanted to be covered if i have anyone to blame but myself. we are part of who we are as the washington examiner but
-american. they are rational and we marched off in to the two foreign-policy debacles of the 20th and early 21st century. robert mcnamara, secretary of defense 30 years later spoke of his regret that we have been able to listen. he said it was a failure of the imagination to realize a french are the best informed westerners on vietnam and we didn't take them seriously because we send to didn't have an interest. as the book recounts, i would to the french archives to look at what was going on in the french foreign ministry. they have no culture in their insignificant. but they said as they analyze intelligence from vietnam 17,000 french citizens they are. exiles in paris and they try to share with us. we couldn't here because it is confusing concept we have. >> host: professor friedman a month of been times in there's another anti-nation type feelings? anti-british empire come anti-roman empire? >> guest: indeed. does the right question to ask because it should be to the use of the term we have in the court age of the british empire. perdition officials talk about anglo phobia to explain why they encount
'll come back and talk more about that and what it meant fo american foreign policy going forward. we continue our discussion on this tenth anniversary of the iraqi war with the distinguished panel of people who observed and written about the war sinces beginning. from cambridge, glrngd john burns, the london bureau chief of the "new york times." in new york, michael gordon, chiefch military correspondent r the "new york times." fouad ajami, a senior fellow of the hoomp institution. dexter filkins of the "new yorker" we hope will be joining us shortly. i go back to michael gordon.ly tell me what the judgment of history will be about our participation in the iraqi war. >> i think too much attentionwa has been paid to the decision tc go to war and not enough on the management of the withdrawal from iraq and where we go from here with iraq. because the story of iraq is not over. and we shouldn't just put thisov chapter behind us and say we're done with it. there were opportunities to be engaged with iraq by the u.s. government on the level of common citizens. there's a tbalt for influenc
, and we saw a column earlier today from a senior member of the american foreign policy council and he's suggesting that the u.s. is less popular in the middle east now than it was at the end of president george w. bush's administration. let's debate that, bring in alan colmes, the host of the alan colmes show and ben ferguson, the most of the ben ferguson show. >> hi. >> alisyn: alan, what do you think of that premise. did candidate obama said he would help to elevate our status internationally after what he believed president bush had done and that our stature was no longer as high. do you think president obama has accomplished that? >> i do and i spent time looking at the polls and our standing worldwide and particularly in the muslim world is a little higher than at the end of the bush administration. one of the problems we have is the anti-islamic video that came out about a year ago and hurt us in pakistan and hurt us in many parts of the middle east and we also were hurt in pakistan by doing something which most of us applauded, going in and getting bin laden. so there are certa
to offer as president on foreign policy. one of the things i have to say that richard nixon is he believed in the big play, or you call it a hail mary pass. he was willing to take huge risks. not all presidents are will do that. detente with th the soviet union with 20. so get a lot to offer presidents. but i do believe, i know this for a fact, there was an effort to make it difficult was it takes to become available. richard nixon, richard nixon by the way was totally in his right to assume that the tapes belonged to him. because every president until richard nixon owned their papers. the national archives didn't know that there were kennedy tapes until, until the nixon tape were released and the kennedy family dental the nation archives, you know that safe in the warehouse which we only have teased? there are tapes there. the national archives didn't know. and so president kennedy, president johnson and president nixon assumed that the tapes they were making would belong to them. well, when president nixon cut a deal, with the overseer of the national archives to try to get back to tapes
years. the president spoke out on that amidst all the other busy stuff he was doing on foreign policy this week. and he said even after nearly two and a half years, a minority of senators continued to block a simple up or down vote on her nomination. the d.c. circuit has more vacancies than any other appeals court. yet we know this doesn't get a lot of attention. do you think there is any. >> to put more pressure on this do nothing congress? >> it is unlikely she will come back up. what is happening here is that this is part of the conservative cause on judicial nominations. they're made about what happened during the bush years when democrats blocked a landful of very conservative judicial nominees. in some respects, this might be payback. what could obama do? he can try another couple of judicial nominations. the bottom line is he needs to clear these judicial nominations with at least a handful of republicans. otherwise if they're too liberal, they will get filibustered. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >>> up next, a huge week ahead for gay rights as the supremes take up two
that chemical agents have been used. senator lindsey graham spoke about the allegations telling foreign policy that quote this. we need to come up with a plan to secure these weapons sites either in conjunction with our partners or, if nothing else, by ourselves. if the choice is to send in troops to secure the weapons sites versus allowing chemical weapons to get in the hands of some of the most violent people in the world, i vote to cut this off before it becomes a problem. but following intelligence briefings, the chairs of both the house and senate intelligence committee said they believe president bashar al assad has crossed the so-called red line in the civil war. >> i think the days are becoming mow desperate. the regime is more desperate. we know where the chemical weapons are. there's no secret that they are there. i think the probabilities are very high that we are going into some very dark times and i think the white house needs to be prepared. >> i have a high probability to believe that chemical weapons were used. we need that final verification but given everything we know over t
spotlight on magazine series. he writes about the role of congress in u.s. foreign policy. we will also take your calls, e- mails, and host: good morning, and welcome to the washington journal. the federal reserve chairman holds his news conference with .eporters u.s. aid officials testify on syria. the commerce panel hears from ,he faa about sequestration and a hearing on domestic use of drones. all those events and more on c- span.org. 10 years ago today marks the us- led invasion into iraq. that is where we begin this morning to get your take on the 10th anniversary. here are the numbers -- host: send us a tweet or post your comments on facebook. we will get to your phone calls in just a minute. is the us from baghdad pentagon correspondent for the washington post. begin with your headline this morning. at least 60 are killed in iraq on tuesday. what happened, and is this a pattern? guest: it has been the deadliest day since u.s. troops have pulled out. an al qaeda group took responsibility for this wave of bombings, and said it was doing so to seek revenge from the government. hearing si
started the center back in 1983, it was our first dedicated foreign policy center at the heritage foundation. back then asian security was all about what's happening here in the cold war. from that perspective, study of the soviet union might have made a lot more sense. dick and i, as we talked it through, talked about the potential that someday it might even be conceivable that u.s. trade with asia would actually even equal our trade with what was going on across the atlantic. today, it's much greater than our trade across the atlantic. we have been blessed by the insights of many dear friends in asia. we have over the years seen the remarkable economic growth and economic development in asia. it's been our very great pleasure, in fact, to recognize that in terms of economic freedom, as it has evolved throughout asia in specific countries and indeed throughout the region. we always knew that our good friends in japan and that the u.s.japan mutual relationship, both the mutual defense treaty and our bilateral general relationship would be central. but we also thought that asia des
next, house foreign affairs committee chairman ed royce talks about u.s. policy towards the asia-pacific region including u.s. relations with china and north korea's nuclear program. then former national security adviser brzezinski discusses the situation in iraq at a forum marking the tenth anniversary of the war. and later, former state and treasury department officials discuss the orange of the islamic militant -- origin of the islamic militant group hezbollah and its global terrorist threat. >> also today retired general john allen who commanded forces in afghanistan discusses the progress of the war during his command and the future mission of the u.s. and nato in the country. general allen led the forces in afghanistan for 19 months from mid 2011 through february of this year. he'll be hosted by the brookings institution, and you can see his remarks live later in this morning at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on "first ladies," called a bigamist and adulterer during her husband's 1828 presidential campaign, rachel jackson chis of an -- dies of an apparent heart attac
. everybody is interested obviously in the foreign policy side like the end of the war in vietnam. but i noticed this in the second term of the bush administration there was more interest in the domestic policy. it is a real problem for historians because of the tapes richard nixon is not always very happy about his domestic policy. i was wondering since we are looking at the earlier period for next-gen, where would you put him in the new deal in the 1950's? would you say he is interested in a continuation of the new deal? what role does he see the government playing in the society? >> certainly think he had no desire to undo the new deal. she was very much aware and in favor of a catastrophic health plan. don't forget when nixon was growing up his family was poor, but he had two brothers who died of tuberculosis so there wasn't very good health care. one brother was 7-years-old, six or seven and then his older brother died when he was 25 and so she was -- so he was very much an internationalist and nixon was a big supporter of the marshall plan and voted for it and a lot of his sestak e
on that journey with. that is trying to figure out what our foreign policy is. i have had a very hard time doing that. i am stumped on the answer in syria. i do not know what the answer is. we have waited so long to really do anything. it reminds me of iran in 2009 and we saw an opportunity against the regime. i find ourselves in a situation now where i do feel like we are reacting to this situation and if we go back to the beginning of the conflict and the net -- and the initial uprising of assad, you have the iran receive supporting the syrian regime on the one hand, and syrian fighter -- freedom fighters on the other hand. at that time, you could assume extremism would not have the ability to organize to this -- to the great extent they probably organize now. at the beginning, and i am asking yolks because you're at -- asking you because you were at these compositions, against a regime that is a supported obama -- supported by iran? i will keep it short because there is a lot i want to ask. >> to be very brief, congressman, i, personally, do not agree we waited so long. we were helping democr
's development a schism in the foreign policy and mitt romney would indeed lead us down the road to another catastrophic, this time with iran. >> having been there while it was going so wrong, seeing it up close, when you think about our governance, do you think there's something that we can do now as a country to try to make it right, to fix the harm we did to ourselves as a country, not just politically. is there any kind of way we can fix the strategic error of that war internally and internationally? >> i think it boils down to the american people. i would like to say there's institutional change we could make statutorily or otherwise. i would like to say that we could elect different people. i would like to say all manner of things that would be easier to do, but i think the bottom line is the american people have got to get angry and they've got to start doing things, local things, state things, national things, whatever they can find or think to do. i was in great neck, new york, talking to a synagogue group this last weekend, and i'll tell you that all those people were war weary an
accomplish? journalists and foreign policy expert a fellow at the institute of peace and wood row wilson international center joins us to talk about a few things we learned from the president's trip. first of all, you say it changed the diplomatic climate of the middle east. is that a little too optimistic? and how so? >> well, the most important thing to come out of this trip was the deal between turkey and israel. turkey is the most powerful muslim country of the 57 nations with strong muslim populations. and this makes a lot of other things possible, whether it's cooperation on syria, whether it gives the blessing to the islamic world dealings with israel, which is widely viewed as kind of an outpost of the west. so it changes the atmosphere in a lot of ways. >> robin, we always talk about the red line if you will when it comes to dealing with iran. it seemed as if at least in this trip the president successfully turned down the volume a little bit in trying to get on the same page with israel and that red line. >> well, this has been the biggest point of tension between president oba
is for a generation republicans dominated politics on three issues -- foreign policy, taxes, and social issues. among social issues, they won the battle and lost the war. there is no single social issue in your favor going forward. on taxes, you stand for giving breaks to the rich. and on foreign policy, they did not support the bush foreign policy, so the issues that made that republican party dominant, all three issues are in democratic favor. until you deal with these problems, it does not matter what network you have. economic conservatives and smaller government, less intrusion, and with they will have to figure out how to mollify the social movement. >> i do not think anyone has suggested the only thing that republicans are waiting right now is doing any better databases and do we need more storefront offices. i was responding to a question directly about that. there is a lot of discussion going on right now about positioning, policies, looking for some of integrating new program pauses, how do we explain our policies better. i do not accept the premise that there is no doubt when you look at t
is traveling to israel in his first foreign policy trip since winning re-election. tomorrow he'll met with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. topping the agenda, iran's nuclear ambitions. thursday he will meet with mahmoud abbas. then friday it's on to jordan for meetings with king abdullah before returning back to washington on saturday. we'll be right back. [ birds chirping ] i'm your hot water heater. you hardly know i exist. that's too bad. 'cuz if my pressure relief valve gets stuck... [ booooooom! ] ...we hot water heaters can transform into rocket propelled wrecking balls. and if you got the wrong home insurance coverage, it's your bank account that might explode. so get allstate. [ dennis ] good hands. good home. make sure you have the right home protection. talk to an allstate agent. work the camera... work it! those hands. oooh la la! what's your secret? dawn? [ female announcer ] dawn hand renewal with olay beauty improves the look and feel of hands in 5 uses. love it, or get double your money back. >>> welcome back to "hardball." of all the ways the iraq war was so
. >>> tonight president obama is traveling to israel in his first foreign policy trip since winning re-election. tomorrow he'll met with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. topping the agenda, iran's nuclear ambitions. on thursday the president will tour the west bank and meet with mahmoud abbas, president of the palestinian authority. then friday it's on to jordan for meetings with king abdullah before returning back to washington on saturday. we'll be right back. [ engine sputters ] [ dennis ] allstate wants everyone to be protected on the road. whether you're an allstate customer or not. all you have to do is call. [ female announcer ] call and sign up for good hands roadside assistance today. [ dennis ] are you in good hands? >>> welcome back to "hardball." of all the ways the iraq war was sold to the american people under false pretense, one of the most galling was we could win this war on the cheap both in lives and in treasure. a new report from brown university, the cost of war study, proves just how wrong that early promise was. the cost in lives was of course overwhelm
netanyahu and called the u.s. and the jewish state unbreakable. mr. obama also covered big foreign policy issues including the iranian threat and the civil war in syria. cnn's john king is live in jerusalem with the latest. john, all seemed very maty and chummy. but underneath all that, what is the reality of the state of the relationship between america and israel right now? >> reporter: there's no question, piers, obvious to the world, not just to these two leaders, they've had a frosty and unfriendly relationship. president obama is left of center, believes the prime minister netanyahu has said some things he finds insulting or didn't like. prime minister netanyahu right of center, supported romney in the last presidential election, has at times stopped at president obama, my language, doesn't get it. both of these guys just won elections. they are in the words of a top american official the other day, stuck with each other. and it's very crystal clear today, both of them have decided to try to turn a new page. are they going to be best friends, i think not. but are they going to be be
-americanism. but ignored foreign opinions. they are rational but marched off into the two foreign policy debacles of the early 21st century. there's a problem. robert mcnamara who orchestrated the escalation in vietnam 30 years later spoke of his regret that we hadn't been able to listen. he said was a failure of the imagination to realize the french are the best informed westerners in vietnam and we didn't take them seriously because we assumed they just it in for us. as the book recounts, and went to the records of the event. i went to the french archives and they weren't writing americans. they have no closer and there is significant. but they said was they analyzed the intelligence from vietnam. the vietnamese exiles are concentrated areas. they had a lot of good information and try to share with us. they tried to help and we couldn't hear because of the confusing concept we have. >> host: professor friedman, have there been times with the other anti-nation type feelings can anti-british empire, anti-roman empire. >> that's the right question to us because it should lead to the use of the ter
factor in foreign policy decisions of both democratic and republican administrations for years to come. what do you think? >> i wouldn't necessarily agree, because, you know, in vietnam we said as the colonel said we learned our lesson but we didn't learn a lesson in the iraq war. even now, the same warhawks are saying we should be in syria. we should go and bomb iran. so i feel as if there is a premise we should be more isolated, that's not the temperature of the republican party for the most part, besides rand paul, who is separate. that's a shame. because we as a country should always be the reluctant warrior. when you look back now to the ten-year anniversary of the iraq war to know this war was started as you mentioned, chris, because the bush administration said there was weapons of mass destruction, and because they said there was a connection with 9/11, neither of which were true and our intelligence agency said to the administration this isn't true yet they still moved forward at the cost of over 4400 americans losing their lives. >> almost 4500 american troops killed. at leas
it all up, it's probably $2 trillion to $3 trillion of american costs, distorted american foreign policy. the idea that we took so much of our situation after the end of the cold war and we devoted it to iraq given everything else we could've, should've done. historians will scratch their head and say why did the united states get so distracted and distorted -- >> and stayed there after we knew there weren't weapons. >> and that's the big lesson we should draw from this in afghanistan. we've got to respect local realities. united states cannot go around the middle east and remake it in our liking. we've got to have a degree of humility about the limits of our influence. and you asked whether we learned the lessons. with vietnam, iraq and afghanistan, i hope we've learnlearn ed. >> and iraq and afghanistan. first of all, be far, far more skeptical than most of us were going in to iraq. also, no matter how far you are down the path, if it's the wrong path, turn around. and we should've done that. i want to read what you talked about the human cost. mike barnicle e-mailed me this last night
. when dick and i started the center back in 1983, it was our first dedicated foreign policy center at the heritage foundation. back then asian security was all about what's happening here in the cold war. from that perspective, study of the soviet union might have made a lot more sense. dick and i, as we talked it through, talked about the potential that someday it might even be conceivable that u.s. trade with asia would actually even equal our trade with what was going on across the atlantic. today, it's much greater than our trade across the atlantic. we have been blessed by the insights of many dear friends in asia. we have over the years seen the remarkable economic growth and economic development in asia. it's been our very great pleasure, in fact, to recognize that in terms of economic freedom, as it has evolved throughout asia in specific countries and indeed throughout the region. we always knew that our good friends in japan and that the u.s.-japan mutual relationship, both the mutual defense treaty and our bilateral general relationship would be central. but we also thou
politics than with foreign-policy. but there is this session it will never happen, but it could happen. to protect israel in a credible fashion, if we wish, by guarantees which are as binding or or more binding than those we get to the europeans and those to the japanese and south koreans. and this is a country which does not have the opportunity to threaten us directly. at the same time, we should not lose sight that if we do repeat iran, what we did vis-À-vis iraq, we will probably engaged in a conflict that is more protracted and more regionally widespread than was the case with iraq a decade ago? so these are some of the concerns from history. let me make one more observation about the nature of war. toker sees are very able wage total war if they are attacked. they are not so good. they're not read this post. they are mentally not prepared to wage total war if they started they were themselves but were not attacked. difference.ortant we were able to break the will of the germans in large measure by massive air assaults on their civilian population. yes, of course, it was justifie
's foreign policy cognizenti, can't seem to draw the obvious conclusions, stop letting these karzai guys play us as suckers and speed up our exit and stop wasting american lives and dollars. that is not very diplomatic but comes from the former head here and probably, as you probably know what a fair number of people think. is that the right prescription? in other words, he is going beyond something that you're talking about. >> it is pretty close except for some of the rhetoric because i don't think we're wasting lives and dollars there. i think we have had a mission. that mission was to remove of the taliban from control of afghanistan. and it was to try to provide the afghan security forces with the numbers and the capabilities, the skills, that they need to prevent the taliban from taking control again. that mission has, for the most part successful militarily. the part which will help to sustain it which is to have a government in afghanistan which is less corrupt, has not been as successful. but it's, nonetheless i think, going to leave afghanistan and we're not going to totally leave i
his first foreign trip to the middle east, how do you see his policy and can he achieve something in his second term? to keep the focus on the big question before us, which is the lessons of a decade of war. given that the general mentioned how war does not often turn out the way you want it to, as the air battle concept would be too much towards. that towards investment would put into iraq -- the and this meant we put into iraq shifted attention from asia? said regarding one of the, with in history, 3 packets of a regime but they were doing this for 3 decads. ites. it's only in the end that the u.s. learned of weapons. all regime was brutal \all the time. world one the whole a table. expenditures on iraq affected our ability to operate elsewhere? the united states is the number one superpower. we have the largest economy. so we manage to remain engaged in other parts of the world. but that does not refer to the proposition that the war iraq was excessively expensive, not only morally but financially and physically. and it has not contributed to great regional stability but has an
there is a lot of attention but it is not so much appreciate treat those foreigners well but just in terms of power do we achieve our goals? by acting unilaterally or with coalitions of different countries of force multipliers to ensure we have helped to pursue our goals and the policies we decide upon are well thought out. in 2002 with the dispute over the iraq war president of france urged americans not to go to war with iraq. he said don't go there i fought in algeria this will end up badly you'll be seen as an occupation and this will not be in your interest. what did we do? lee said the french are anti-american, they resent there star is falling so we poured french wine into the gutter and renamed the french fries as free of rise that we should dig up the boys from normandy because it is no longer a resting place and there was demonstrations what is this wave of anti-americanism? i thought that reminds me of the early '60s when the president of france charles de gaulle told the kennedy administration don't go to war in vietnam. we have been there and we know the terrain. he said this
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)